> I liked 2r/3 because it gives the sense that r/ is the rational > division operator, where // is the whatever-the-hell-it-is division > operator. I don't know if it works in the grammar to be able to say > > x r/ y > > though. Does it? That would require changes to the tokenizer. But I am against r/ on different grounds: it's not the kind of grouping of symbols that one would expect. People are used to 12L, 1j and then it's a small step to 2r. There were also precedents for r"..." and u"...": C's w"...". If you want a precedent for 2/, you'd have to search in Lisp or Forth or other (nearly) grammar-less languages. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4